Skip to content
ADVERTISEMENT
Sign In
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Virtual Events
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
  • More
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Virtual Events
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
    Upcoming Events:
    An AI-Driven Work Force
    AI and Microcredentials
Sign In
The Review

Can It Really Be True That Half of Academic Papers Are Never Read?

By Arthur G. Jago June 1, 2018
I Followed the Citation Trail. It Was a Dead End. 1
Tim Foley for The Chronicle

A recent Chronicle opinion essay arguing that the tenure process can be quite unfair included this line: “At least one study found that the average academic article is read by about 10 people, and half of these articles are never read at all.” In a commentary that I was otherwise in complete agreement with, I found that particular statement quite unbelievable. First, the magnitude of the assertions was simply astonishing. Second, I was perplexed by how someone could design a study to empirically determine that some published articles were never read. Such a study was beyond my imagination; the pseudo-logical fallacy of “proving the negative” came to mind.

To continue reading for FREE, please sign in.

Sign In

Or subscribe now to read with unlimited access for as low as $10/month.

Don’t have an account? Sign up now.

A free account provides you access to a limited number of free articles each month, plus newsletters, job postings, salary data, and exclusive store discounts.

Sign Up

I Followed the Citation Trail. It Was a Dead End. 1
Tim Foley for The Chronicle

A recent Chronicle opinion essay arguing that the tenure process can be quite unfair included this line: “At least one study found that the average academic article is read by about 10 people, and half of these articles are never read at all.” In a commentary that I was otherwise in complete agreement with, I found that particular statement quite unbelievable. First, the magnitude of the assertions was simply astonishing. Second, I was perplexed by how someone could design a study to empirically determine that some published articles were never read. Such a study was beyond my imagination; the pseudo-logical fallacy of “proving the negative” came to mind.

I contacted the author and was provided her source, an article in Smithsonian, the magazine. This article actually qualified (somewhat) the implausible claim by asserting that 50 percent of papers are never read by anyone “other than their authors, referees and journal editors.” I guess it is some consolation to know that humans do indeed write, review, and select most manuscripts for publication, although we do know that computer-written gibberish occasionally makes it into print, into citation indices, and into researchers’ h-values.

A link in the Smithsonian article points to Indiana University as its source for the statistics, but this proved inaccurate. The Smithsonian author redirected me to the actual source, a 2007 article by Lokman Meho in Physics World, the magazine of the London-based Institute of Physics. When I asked Meho for his source of the cited statistics, he told me that “this statement was added to my paper by the editor of the journal at the time and I unfortunately did not ask from where he got this information before the paper was published.” The Meho article has been formally cited over 300 times.

In turn, I contacted the editor of Physics World from 2007. He told me that “it was indeed” something that he had inserted during editing, from material provided to him in a communications course taken at Imperial College London in 2001. I contacted the instructor of that course, now retired, who told me he could not provide me with a specific reference to what is now “ancient history” but that “everything in those notes had a source, but whether I cross-checked them all before banging the notes out, I doubt.”

The Physics World editor suggested that the Imperial College course material may have been based on a 1991 article in Science. However, I discovered that that article was not about unread research but was rather about uncited research. Not being read is a sufficient condition for not being cited; however, not being cited is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for not being read — i.e., not being cited says nothing about an article having been read or unread. As a striking illustration of the difference, a 2010 article was recently identified in Nature as an online paper that has never been cited but has been viewed 1,500 times and downloaded 500 times. (The paradox, of course, is that this uncited paper is not now uncited, by virtue of it being cited for its uncitedness.)

Frustrated, I ended my search for the bibliographic equivalent of “patient zero.” The original source of the fantastical claim that the average academic article has “about 10 readers” may never be known for sure.

In the bigger picture, it is certainly true that much of published research has limited readership. As a young scholar — and well before electronic journal access — I was quite amazed to learn that one of the five most prestigious academic journals in my field (business management) had a worldwide circulation, including all libraries, of a mere 800 copies. Indeed, our audiences are often quite small, and some large percentage of articles undoubtedly have very little impact.

However, because an assertion is intuitively appealing or reinforcing of existing beliefs does not justify misstatements of fact or the distortion or embellishment of what can be documented. In their communications with me, all of the participants in this tale — good people, to be sure — recognized an absence of sound justification in their actions.

Even when a primary source is accurate, a reference to it may still be quite problematic when an author relies upon a flawed secondary source but cites, instead, the primary source. Using statistical modeling of recurring identical misprints in bibliographic entries, two UCLA engineers estimate that “only about 20 percent of citers read the original” article that they claim as a source in their own reference lists. Stated otherwise, 80 percent of citers are not readers, and the secondary flaws they encounter they themselves propagate in their own articles.

ADVERTISEMENT

This object lesson in the perils of relying on secondary sources reminds us all that our readers place a trust in us each time we put words to paper. We have a duty, on behalf of all authors, to do our best to fulfill that trust when we produce those words. A single mistake — a bibliographic patient zero — may be quite small and entirely unintentional. However, it can infect the literature like a self-duplicating virus and become amplified with time.

In a 2009 essay, the Pulitzer Prize winner John McPhee noted that “any error is everlasting” and quoted Sara Lippincott, a New Yorker fact-checker, that once an error gets into print it “will live on and on in libraries carefully catalogued, scrupulously indexed … silicon-chipped, deceiving researcher after researcher down through the ages, all of whom will make new errors on the strength of the original errors, and so on and on into an exponential explosion of errata.” Lesson learned.

Arthur G. Jago is a professor emeritus of management at the University of Missouri at Columbia. He has published articles in, among other journals, the very prestigious but not widely read Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes.

We welcome your thoughts and questions about this article. Please email the editors or submit a letter for publication.
Tags
Opinion
Share
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Email
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

Related Content

The Journal That Couldn’t Stop Citing Itself
Hot Type: Despite Warnings, Biomedical Scholars Cite Hundreds of Retracted Papers
Meet Retraction Watch, the Blog That Points Out the Human Stains on the Scientific Record

More News

Photo illustration showing Santa Ono seated, places small in the corner of a dark space
'Unrelentingly Sad'
Santa Ono Wanted a Presidency. He Became a Pariah.
Illustration of a rushing crowd carrying HSI letters
Seeking precedent
Funding for Hispanic-Serving Institutions Is Discriminatory and Unconstitutional, Lawsuit Argues
Photo-based illustration of scissors cutting through paper that is a photo of an idyllic liberal arts college campus on one side and money on the other
Finance
Small Colleges Are Banding Together Against a Higher Endowment Tax. This Is Why.
Pano Kanelos, founding president of the U. of Austin.
Q&A
One Year In, What Has ‘the Anti-Harvard’ University Accomplished?

From The Review

Photo- and type-based illustration depicting the acronym AAUP with the second A as the arrow of a compass and facing not north but southeast.
The Review | Essay
The Unraveling of the AAUP
By Matthew W. Finkin
Photo-based illustration of the Capitol building dome propped on a stick attached to a string, like a trap.
The Review | Opinion
Colleges Can’t Trust the Federal Government. What Now?
By Brian Rosenberg
Illustration of an unequal sign in black on a white background
The Review | Essay
What Is Replacing DEI? Racism.
By Richard Amesbury

Upcoming Events

Plain_Acuity_DurableSkills_VF.png
Why Employers Value ‘Durable’ Skills
Warwick_Leadership_Javi.png
University Transformation: a Global Leadership Perspective
  • Explore Content
    • Latest News
    • Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Professional Development
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Chronicle Intelligence
    • Jobs in Higher Education
    • Post a Job
  • Know The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • Vision, Mission, Values
    • DEI at The Chronicle
    • Write for Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • Our Reporting Process
    • Advertise With Us
    • Brand Studio
    • Accessibility Statement
  • Account and Access
    • Manage Your Account
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Group and Institutional Access
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
  • Get Support
    • Contact Us
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • User Agreement
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
1255 23rd Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037
© 2025 The Chronicle of Higher Education
The Chronicle of Higher Education is academe’s most trusted resource for independent journalism, career development, and forward-looking intelligence. Our readers lead, teach, learn, and innovate with insights from The Chronicle.
Follow Us
  • twitter
  • instagram
  • youtube
  • facebook
  • linkedin